And would with M4A. There would be no such thing as “out of network” and as such the only limiting factor would be if the doctor themself already has too many patients.
I’m actually not really. Here’s at least a logical arguments one could make.
Healthcare is a scarce resource like all things. Making it universal doesn’t exempt it from that fact. Removing it from a competitive market will likely make it more expensive and prevent innovations which will keep it affordable. Competitive markets drive efficiency.
Government provided healthcare rations service availability based on criteria they set. A private system rations availability based on the indivual’s ability to afford the service. If people can afford the service additional capacity can be created with that money. Under a government system extremely long wait times are the norm … With health this may mean late diagnosis of cancer and other suboptimal outcomes.
People are generally more wealthy in the later years of their lives and also in need of more care. Under a public system the costs associated with an aging population will be disproportionately placed on younger people who still pay taxes in their prime earning years. With the number of working people constantly decreasing when compared to the number of retired baby boomers this is unsustainable under a public system.
At the end of the day I think free markets apply poorly to healthcare because you have no ability to comparison shop during a medical emergency. Also US seems to have the worst mix of regulated private healthcare which has kept costs the highest of any country. I do think most social democratic countries are basically screwed over the next 20 years with the demographics being what they are.
What do you mean both sides are the same? They are not. One is 6 and the other is 9.
Edit: I don’t mean it in a cynical way. Just that positioning matters in establishing truth. It is not just a matter of perspective (defined as subjective perception) but rather a matter of position (defined as inter-subjective agreement).
I agree there. This comic implies that both observers are correct because they are looking at the same thing from different angles; but that’s not how most political issues are. It doesn’t matter what your perspective on human rights is. If your perspective says human rights are not good: you’re wrong. It’s more akin to two people looking at the exact same thing, but one of them has glasses on that make them see ghosts and goblins that aren’t really there.
It’s actually pretty on point, but OP’s conclusion is off. People are discounting the amount of Americans that are just good with doing a bit of frontier surgery on themselves and calling it a day.
Yeah they have bad planning for the future during end-of-life care. But technically speaking it would cause them to pay more in the short term for little benefit.
It’s important to know that’s where the argument “it would cost me more” comes from. That way you can persuade more effectively.
That is simply not true. Society can be maintained so long as the average individual contributes at least as much as they get. That’s the whole point of European healthcare systems: everyone pays a little bit so the few individuals who need them can get expensive treatments.
Actually, the painter wrote a 6. They were commissioned to write a 6.
Fuck your perspective, people should consider the original intent and research rather than just argue about it. Calling it “free speech” doesnt make it right or moral.
Replace “original intent” with “context” and I agree 100% with you.
I think that this is important to point out because we don’t really have access to each other’s “intention” (whatever this means); at most what they say and do, and specially for politics there’s often a big mismatch between the alleged intentions of a policy vs. what the policy achieves.
Or, playing along the pic: if that random scribble is between a “5” and a “7”, then it means six, no matter if the author claims “actually it’s a nine”.
(NB: I’m discussing this on general grounds, based on the image. I’m not from USA nor discussing its healthcare.)
It’s pure greed. Most good working systems in Europe work with sub systems, where you pay a fee to use that sub system. If the US government created his own and regulated the current insurance providers people would be far better protected. I believe in free market and capitalism as any sane person, but healthcare isnt something to be explored like that.
It's not. The two people in the picture are disagreeing. The joke is that normally this picture would be captioned with two people simply disagreeing over weather the shape is a 6 or a 9, but instead they're disagreeing with a political position.
It’s an edit. The original has one guy saying 6, the other saying 9, because the creator naively thought “oh the political divide is really just down to people not understanding each other”. This is a fairly common opinion of dipshit american centrists.
The edited version points out how this is incorrect, and that in reality different people have entirely different political views which cannot be reconciled. The example used is that rich people (the same ones that make up the US government and receive bribes from health insurance companies, for instance) want to keep making money from predatory health insurance and so oppose universal healthcare, while the average citizen supports universal healthcare.
It isn’t just fucking poor people. It’s paying out the ass to fuck poor people. Are they so committed to their principles that they wouldn’t want to save a ton of money?
The actual rich who control our society aren’t paying out the ass, they’re the ones being paid.
Rank and file “working class” conservatives are deliberately poorly educated and fed endless propaganda to get them to vote against their interests and in favor of the rich.
Conservatives of moderate wealth, the “middle class” of small business tyrants and boat salesmen, live in constant abject terror of losing what they have. They know that if wealth were distributed equally, their quality of life would go down. As a result, they fight against any change towards redistribution of wealth, even if it would be beneficial.
I love Lemmy. Hard for authoritarian shitbags to overrun left leaning spaces if we know where they’re coming from and can just filter them out like this
It’s so fucking funny seeing some lib who didn’t know what hexbear was until like a week ago screeching about evil tankies in response to a relatively innocuous shitpost
